{"id":1980,"date":"2018-04-04T10:42:30","date_gmt":"2018-04-04T15:42:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nflconcussionlitigation.com\/?p=1980"},"modified":"2018-04-05T08:55:50","modified_gmt":"2018-04-05T13:55:50","slug":"cte-reaches-the-high-courts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nflconcussionlitigation.com\/?p=1980","title":{"rendered":"CTE Reaches the High Courts"},"content":{"rendered":"

Next week, a potential landmark case will be heard by the Ohio Supreme Court<\/a>. This is the first CTE case to reach the high courts. And the stakes could not be higher.<\/p>\n

At issue: when does a CTE claim accrue for purposes of the statute of limitations?<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs, correctly, argue that CTE is a latent disease that does not manifest until decades after the last brain trauma. As a result, a CTE claim does not accrue until an individual has been diagnosed.<\/p>\n

This is consistent with black letter law associated with latent diseases and the application of the bedrock principle of the discovery rule.<\/p>\n

The sports industry–in this case, the NCAA & Notre Dame–contend that the plaintiffs’ claim is barred because the claim accrued when the player was last exposed to the head trauma. According to the industry, the claim must have been filed decades ago.<\/p>\n

This argument is manifestly wrong and highlights the tactics the industry uses\u00a0to distort the science of CTE during the course of litigation.<\/p>\n

What’s more, the sports industry contends that even if the discovery rule applies, then the claim is still time barred since the individual should have known, through the “exercise of reasonable diligence,” that he had CTE prior to his diagnosis. The sports industry points to the very medical literature<\/a> it denies to support this argument.<\/p>\n

Stated differently, the sports industry, to this day, still denies<\/a> the existence of the link between repetitive brain trauma in contact sports and CTE. Yet, this very same sports industry contends that the medical literature should have put the plaintiff on notice that he had CTE.<\/p>\n

By that logic, then, shouldn’t the sports industry, through the exercise of reasonable diligence<\/em>, also have known about the risks of CTE and warned accordingly?<\/p>\n

Of course. But we know it did not<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This is a classic case of industry doublespeak. Or, the industry trying to have its cake and eat it too.<\/p>\n

In either event, the Ohio Supreme Court should affirm the court of appeals decision<\/a>, which agreed with the plaintiffs, and hold that a claim for CTE is a distinct latent disease that does not accrue until an individual has been medically diagnosed.<\/p>\n

The arguments will be live streamed here<\/a>. A summary of the briefs is below, along with links to the dockets and briefs.<\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

Did Brain-Damaged College Football Player Wait Too Long to Sue for Injuries?<\/a><\/h2>\n

National Collegiate Athletic Association et al. v. Steven Schmitz et al.<\/em>, Case no.\u00a02017-0098<\/a>
\nEighth District Court of Appeals<\/p>\n

ISSUES:<\/p>\n